Political Debates on Islamic Headscarves and Civic Integration Abroad in France and the Netherlands: What Can Models Explain?

Abstract

This article evaluates the explanatory capacity of national models of migrant integration, through a comparative analysis of the regulation of Islamic headscarves on the one hand and civic integration abroad policies on the other hand, in both France and the Netherlands. It argues that national models—defined as historically rooted conceptions of nationhood, polity, and belonging—matter because they enable and constrain the framing of policy problems. However, the impact of national models on the policy outcome is determined by the political and institutional context in which decision-making takes place.

KEYWORDS:

• National models
• state–church relations
• civic integration
• headscarves
• France
• Netherlands
• party politics
• courts

Acknowledgments

Saskia Bonjour's contribution to this article is based on a research project implemented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (GERME) and generously funded by the Communauté Française de Belgique. The authors are indebted to Ines Michalowski, Claudia Finotelli, Karen Schönwälder, and the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this article. The final version of this article was submitted in September 2011.

Notes

1. Loi no. 2004–228 du 15 mars 2004 encadrant, en application du principe de laïcité, le port de signes ou de tenues manifestant une appartenance religieuse dans les écoles, collèges et lycées publics [Law no. 2001-228 of 15 March 2004 regulating, in application of the principle of laicité, the wearing of signs or clothing which manifests religious belonging, in public schools].

2. No. 2004–118, 22 March 2004.

3. The Commission de réflexion sur l’application du principe de laïcité dans la République [Commission of reflection about the principle of laicité in the Republic], named after its head Bernard Stasi, consisted of 19 members, ranging from academics, intellectuals and administrators to representatives of integration organizations or business life.

4. Rapport au Président de la République sur l’application du principe de laicité dans la République [Report to the President of the Republic about the application of the principle of laicité in the Republic] (Stasi report), December 11, 2003, pp. 47−49.

5. Assemblée Nationale (AN), plenary debate, February 3, 2004.

6. Rapport Mission d’Information 1275 La Laïcité à l’Ecole: Un principe Républicain à réaffirmer [Report Information Mission 1275 Laicité at school: A Republican principle that should be reaffirmed] (Debré report), December 4, 2003.

7. AN, no. 2096 (2000).

8. AN, explanations of the vote, February 10, 2004.

9. Tweede Kamer (TK) Appendix to the Proceedings 2387, June 26, 2007 (cf. TK Appendix to the Proceedings 36, December 11, 2008).

10. Leidraad Kleding op Scholen [Guideline clothing at school], June 11, 2003. WJL/2003/23379, June 2, 2003. WJL/2003/25011, June 10, 2003.

11. TK 29614 (2): 13−14, June 1, 2004.

12. TK 29754 (41), October 10, 2005.

13. TK 31108 (1−4), July 12, 2007. TK 31331 (2−3), January 24, 2008.

14. TK 31200 VII (209), September 8, 2008.

15. TK 31700 VIII (127), December 24, 2008.

16. In addition, in the Netherlands, “religious leaders” are required to pass the civic integration abroad exam.

17. Code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile [Code on the entry and stay of foreigners and on the right to asylum] (CESEDA) L211–2-1.

18. AN, Rapport No. 160, September 12, 2007.

19. TK 29700 (3): 5−6, July 21, 2004; TK 29700 plenary debate: 4002, March 22, 2005.

20. TK 29700 (3): 6 & 11, July 21, 2004.

21. AN, Rapport No 160, September 12, 2007.

22. Sénat, plenary debate October 3, 2007 (cf. AN, plenary debate September 18, 2007).

23. AN, plenary debate September 19, 2007.

24. TK 29700 (3): 2−4, July 21, 2004.

25. TK 29700 (6): 43, December 6, 2004; TK 29700 (3): 6, 14−15, July 21, 2004.

26. Projet de loi relatif à la maîtrise de l’immigration, à l’intégration et à l’asile [Legislative proposal on migration control, integration and asylum], July 4, 2007.

27. TK 29700 (3): 2−4, July 21, 2004.

28. AN, Amendement No 64, September 14, 2007; AN, Amendement No 84, September 17, 2007; AN, Amendement No 70, September 17, 2007; AN, Amendement No 83, September 17, 2007.

29. AN, plenary debate September 19, 2007.

30. In recent years, the EU Directive on family reunification of 2003 has also come to play a role, but jurisprudence based on the directive is still limited.

31. TK 29700 (3): 17, July 21, 2004; TK 29700 (6): 47−48, December 6, 2004.

32. TK 29700 (4): 6, April 13, 2004.

33. TK 29700 plenary debate: 4021, March 22, 2005.

34. Karaduman vs. Turkey (1993); Dahlab vs. Switzerland (2001); Shahin vs. Turkey (2004, 2005). See Vakulenko (2007).

35. TK 29754 (91) Appendix.

36. At the time of writing this article, the new Dutch minority coalition government (that relies on the support of the Freedom party) announced its plans to implement a full ban on face covers in public space in 2011. This will depend on whether the law proposal, which must still be drafted and accepted by a parliamentary majority, will pass the legal scrutiny of the Senate.